Cull?

[Wartman]

I think Wartman forgot the mascot, groundsman and tea lady !

Yes sorry I forgot about the groundsman he should be on the list for serving up one of the worst pitches in living memory, the mascot and tea lady are both useful to the club so are exempt from the cull.

[gazan]

Yes sorry I forgot about the groundsman he should be on the list for serving up one of the worst pitches in living memory, the mascot and tea lady are both useful to the club so are exempt from the cull.

What about the corner flags? Don't you think they should go too. Static, no positional sense, hardly ever contribute to the team and tend to get into a flap when it's windy.

[Wartman]

What about the corner flags? Don't you think they should go too. Static, no positional sense, hardly ever contribute to the team and tend to get into a flap when it's windy.

In fairness Gazan the corner flags are way more mobile than our forward line and to be fair they are always closer to the goal.

[gazan]

In fairness Gazan the corner flags are way more mobile than our forward line and to be fair they are always closer to the goal.

😂

[OzMozz]

In fairness Gazan the corner flags are way more mobile than our forward line and to be fair they are always closer to the goal.

Ohhh … how true !!!! Love it !

[gazan]

So....which would be better: signing people with a decent track record but have a history of injuries (being the reason they are available at an affordable price/salary) or someone of no particular injury record but a playing record that makes their price equal to the value of the injury prone players? The idea being that the latter category of player may not be missing as often but wouldn't offer the potential extra that the injury prone player potentially could.
Purely hypothetical I know but considering that a lot of our injury record in the last 2 or 3 seasons has been concentrated on certain individuals, would it be a good idea to clear out those consistently injured?

[Wartman]

So....which would be better: signing people with a decent track record but have a history of injuries (being the reason they are available at an affordable price/salary) or someone of no particular injury record but a playing record that makes their price equal to the value of the injury prone players? The idea being that the latter category of player may not be missing as often but wouldn't offer the potential extra that the injury prone player potentially could.
Purely hypothetical I know but considering that a lot of our injury record in the last 2 or 3 seasons has been concentrated on certain individuals, would it be a good idea to clear out those consistently injured?

The common denominator is insufficient recruitment too small a squad, players flogged to death playing week in week out carrying knocks eventually those injuries catch up with the player and they become lengthy injuries. Every year we recruit half the players we actually need and fill the short fall with kids who are not good enough for league football.

I have been sceptical for a number of years about the academy model and question does it now serve the same purpose as it did 10-15 years ago and the answer is unequivocally no. I think it is time that we switched to the development squad model and with the money we save from the academy use some of that to increase both the wage and transfer budget, the big problem is that nobody at board level has the desire or courage to change course, and unfortunately the academy will bizarrely be our demise and we are a non league team in waiting.

[gazan]

Genuine question: Carlisle - rich (ISH) owners who have put money into a club. Recruited a 'celebrity' manager. THEY might actually be playing non-league next season. So there's a team who have many more resources who are in greater danger than the Alex. Compared to Carlisle (and Milton Keynes and Gillingham), what do you think the Alex are doing wrong?

[Timmy58]

The common denominator is insufficient recruitment too small a squad, players flogged to death playing week in week out carrying knocks eventually those injuries catch up with the player and they become lengthy injuries. Every year we recruit half the players we actually need and fill the short fall with kids who are not good enough for league football.

I have been sceptical for a number of years about the academy model and question does it now serve the same purpose as it did 10-15 years ago and the answer is unequivocally no. I think it is time that we switched to the development squad model and with the money we save from the academy use some of that to increase both the wage and transfer budget, the big problem is that nobody at board level has the desire or courage to change course, and unfortunately the academy will bizarrely be our demise and we are a non league team in waiting.

Which of our "kids" that have played this season do you feel are not good enough for league football?

[Wartman]

Which of our "kids" that have played this season do you feel are not good enough for league football?

This season the only one that looks like he has a bright future and stands to make lots of appearances for the club is Callum Agius.